European Management Journal Vol. 25, No. 5, pp.
395–410, 2007
doi:10.1016/j.emj.2007.08.005
How to Sustain the
Customer Experience:
An Overview of
Experience Components
that Co-create Value
With the Customer
CHIARA GENTILE, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
NICOLA SPILLER, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
GIULIANO NOCI, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Nowadays the experience factor plays an increas-
ingly important role in determining the success of
a company’s offering. The literature on Customer
Experience is growing fast and the debate among
scholars and practitioners is fervent. While many
studies explore such theme from a theoretical view-
point, tools aimed at supporting marketing manag-
ers in devising the right stimuli to support an
excellent Customer Experience are still scarce. In
this perspective, this study sheds some light on
the concept of Customer Experience, and on how
the right environment and setting for the desired
Customer Experience should be created in such a
way as to contribute to the value creation for cus-
tomers and the company itself. Drawing from the
results of a survey submitted to several groups of
customers, this paper attempts to understand the
specific role of different experiential features in
the success achieved by some well-known prod-
ucts. Following the empirical investigation, this
work also suggests an interpretative model to sup-
port the marketing manager in generating the
proper stimuli to activate the various components
of the Customer Experience.
Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
European Management Journal Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 395–410, October 2007
Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
0263-2373 $32.00
Keywords: Experimential marketing, Customer
experience, Customer behaviour
Introduction
Nowadays competing in a global market has become
increasingly difficult and only the creation of long-
lasting competitive advantages seems to offer an ave-
nue for survival. But where should a company start
looking to develop a competitive advantage? Many
scholars advocate that one of the main routes to
reach it is by means of a much stronger focus on
the customer (Douglas and Craig, 2000; Farinet and
Ploncher, 2002; Kotler and Keller, 2006; Peppers
and Rogers, 2000).
In the last years, and particularly in the process of
devising a company’s strategy, this growing attention
on the customer resulted in an increased focus on
CRM philosophies. More recently, as the number of
contact points between a company and its customers
increased, such attention to the customer revealed the
fundamental importance of monitoring the many
experiences that originate from those contact points.
395
HOW TO SUSTAIN THE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE
In this perspective, the central idea is to expand the
transaction-based notion of Customer Relationship
to the ‘‘continuous’’ concept of Customer Experience.
Consequently, it becomes necessary to consider
aspects that refer to the emotional and irrational side
of customer behavior (Holbrook and Hirschman,
1982) and which, more than the only rational ones,
account for the whole experience coming from the
set of interactions between a company and its cus-
tomers. Such experience plays a fundamental role
in determining the customers’ preferences, which
then influence their purchase decisions. In fact,
whilst the classical economic theory regards the con-
sumer as a logical thinker whose purchasing deci-
sions are based on rational problem solving, the
recent developments on the literature on economics
and marketing, and particularly the new stream of
the Experiential Marketing, advocates for the exploi-
tation of intangible elements linked to the emotional
value perceived by customers.
In addition, a similar position can be found in the
managerial field; in fact, 85% of senior business man-
agers believe that differentiating solely on the tradi-
tional elements, such as price, product and quality,
is no longer a sustainable competitive advantage
and even more senior managers hold the Customer
Experience as the next competitive battleground
(Shaw and Ivens, 2005).
Despite such vibrant enthusiasm, however, the real-
ity is very different, and far from being close to either
what the literature advocates or what many compa-
nies claim in their statement of intent.
In addition, the scientific literature on this topic
shows the limitations and inadequacies that are typ-
ical of those research fields which are still far from
their maturity, particularly as it lacks both in terms
of a precise terminology and of structured and stan-
dardized approaches that can support the adoption
of the above mentioned practices.
Given these considerations, the aim of this paper is to
contribute towards the formalization and the
improvement of the existing models and approaches
on the matter. In particular, the present study con-
tributes to the scientific debate in terms of a further
rationalization of the approaches and theories so far
developed and in attempting to provide an answer
to certain open issues. Specifically, in this work it is
provided:
v a conceptual definition of ‘‘Customer Experi-
ence’’ based on the most relevant scholarly and
managerial contributions;
v an analysis of the specific role played by the
experiential features in a sample of innovative
products with respect to the outcomes of their
introduction to the market;
v an interpretative model aimed to support a com-
pany in the process of devising contexts and arti-
396
facts that are conducive of a (Customer)
Experience, and which can then be used by con-
sumers to co-produce their own experience.
State-of-the-art Literature on Experiential
Marketing
The concept of Customer Experience was firstly con-
ceived in the mid-1980s when, along with the main-
stream literature in consumer behavior that deemed
customers as rational decision makers, a new experi-
ential approach offered an original view to consumer
behavior (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982). The
importance of various hitherto neglected variables
was re-considered: ‘‘the role of emotions in behavior;
the fact that consumers are feelers as well as thinkers
and doers;. . .the roles of consumers, beyond the act
of purchase, in product usage as well as brand
choice’’ (Addis and Holbrook, 2001). Despite these
initial sparks, the concept of Customer Experience
came more relevantly to the fore in the 1990s with
Pine and Gilmore’s book on the Experience Economy
(1999); the authors present the ‘‘experiences’’ as a new
economic offering, which emerges as the next step
after commodities, goods and services in what they
call the progression of economic value. Hence, in the fol-
lowing years a flourishing of different contributions
focused their attention on the Customer Experience
as a new lever to create value for both the company
and the customer (Addis and Holbrook, 2001;
Carù and Cova, 2003; Ferraresi and Schmitt, 2006;
Forlizzi and Ford, 2000; LaSalle and Britton, 2003;
Milligan and Smith, 2002; Ponsonby-Mccabe and
Boyle, 2006; Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004; Sch-
mitt, 1999; Schmitt, 2003; Shaw and Ivens, 2005;
Smith and Wheeler, 2002). The starting point of these
approaches is a renewed way to consider the well-
known concept of consumption: it becomes a holistic
experience which involves a person – as opposed to a
customer - as a whole at different levels and in every
interaction between such person and a company, or a
company’s offer (LaSalle and Britton, 2003). In this
perspective, the memorability of the ‘‘staged’’ events,
as in Pine and Gilmore’s works, is no longer of pri-
mary importance: what contributes to the creation
of value is not so much selling memorable experi-
ences but to enable the customer to live all the
moments of the relationship with a company in an
excellent way, even beyond her expectations (LaSalle
and Britton, 2003) or, according to the viewpoint of
Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004), to co-create their
own unique experience with the company. In this
perspective, companies do not sell (or stage, accord-
ing to Pine and Gilmore’s perspective) experiences,
but rather they provide artifacts and contexts that
are conducive of experiences and which can be prop-
erly employed by consumers to co-create their own,
unique, experiences (Carù and Cova, 2003; Carù
and Cova, 2007). Indeed, Schmitt (1999) states that
‘‘as a marketer you need to provide the right
European Management Journal Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 395–410, October 2007

environment and setting for the desired customer
experiences to emerge’’. More recently, a comprehen-
sive contribution has been offered in the book ‘‘Con-
suming Experience’’ (Carù and Cova, 2007), in which
the authors identify a ‘‘continuum of consuming
experiences’’ ranging from experiences that are
mainly constructed by the consumers, to experiences
that are largely developed by companies (a kind of
approach which is close to Pine and Gilmore’s view-
point), passing through experiences that are co-cre-
ated by consumers and companies (as per Prahalad
and Ramaswamy). Accordingly, the role of the firm
changes in each stage of the continuum: from a com-
pany pursuing almost a traditional product or ser-
vice marketing approach to a company adopting a
holistic and immersive experiential marketing
approach (thus providing immersive experiences,
whereby a consumer dives into an experience that
is fully developed in details by a company), passing
through a co-creation stage, in which a company pro-
vide the consumer with the basic platform and raw
materials that are then being used by the consumer
to mold and obtain his/her own experience.
As the scientific contributions are rich and diverse, so
are the different interpretations and conceptualiza-
tions of the Customer Experience offered by each
author; nevertheless, despite the differences of per-
spective and the various models proposed, one can
identify some common core characteristics of the
Customer Experience. First, it has a temporal dimen-
sion which originates from the entire set of contact
points (or moments of truth, Carlzon, 1987) between
the customer and the company, or the company’s
offer (Addis and Holbrook, 2001; Carù and Cova,
2003; LaSalle and Britton, 2003), then it is strictly per-
sonal and it involves and engages a customer at dif-
ferent levels (rational, emotional, sensorial, physical
and also ‘‘spiritual’’) so as to create a holistic Gestalt
(Brakus, 2001; Schmitt, 1999).
While the overall picture offers plenty of potentiality,
if we exclude some pioneers, only few companies
have adopted the perspective of the Customer Expe-
rience, whereas the many are still far from the level
of success that can potentially be obtained by lever-
aging on the Customer Experience.
Two facts can then be regarded as main reasons for
such slow adoption rate: one is the lack in the extant
literature of models, interpretation and conceptuali-
zation offering a common terminology and a shared
mindset, the other is the lack of structured manage-
rial approaches, which can only be overcome by a
deeper comprehension of the role played by the Cus-
tomer Experience.
Conceptual Framework
This paragraph outlines the reference framework of
the research. In the first part we elaborate, drawing
European Management Journal Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 395–410, October 2007
HOW TO SUSTAIN THE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE
from the debate in literature, a definition of Cus-
tomer Experience which underlies the subsequent
analysis; the second part delves into the concept of
Customer Experience and introduces its elementary
dimensions: the experiential components.
In the third part we describe a general framework
whereby the inter-relations between the concepts of
Customer Experience and value exchanged are out-
lined, as well as the relationships between such con-
cepts, the customer and the company.
A Definition of Customer Experience
For our purpose, we consider a definition of Cus-
tomer Experience which takes into account the most
relevant scientific contributions; specifically, we
define the concept of Customer Experience as an evo-
lution of the concept of relationship between the
company and the customer.
‘‘The Customer Experience originates from a set of interactions
between a customer and a product, a company, or part of its orga-
nization, which provoke a reaction (LaSalle and Britton, 2003;
Shaw and Ivens, 2005). This experience is strictly personal
and implies the customer’s involvement at different levels
(rational, emotional, sensorial physical and spiritual) (LaSalle
and Britton, 2003; Schmitt, 1999). Its evaluation depends on
the comparison between a customer’s expectations and the
stimuli coming from the interaction with the company and its
offering in correspondence of the different moments of contact
or touch-points (LaSalle and Britton, 2003; Shaw and Ivens,
2005).’’
This definition serves as a basis for a deeper con-
ceptualization of Customer Experience, which is
explained in the following paragraph.
The Multidimensionality of the Customer
Experience
While still complying with the fundamental rule that a
good experience must holistically and consistently
involve a person at different levels, and following pre-
vious conceptualization, we base our analysis on the
psychological concept of modularity of mind (Pinker,
1997). Various psychological and behavioral studies
(Anderson, 1995; Brakus, 2001; Fiske and Taylor,
1991; Goleman, 1995; Schmitt and Simonson, 1997;
Tavassoli, 1998) distinguish three basic systems –
sensation, cognition and affect – each with its own struc-
tures, principles and mutual interactions. In addition,
when considering a person per se, these studies take
into account the set of one’s actions, the system of
values and beliefs (from which lifestyles and behaviors
are derived) and relationships.
Furthermore, the multidimensionality of experiences
is also widely recognized in the medical literature.
For instance, many neurophysiologic studies support
the widely accepted notion that pain is a multidi-
mensional experience including sensory, cognitive
397
HOW TO SUSTAIN THE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE
and emotional components (i.e. Fulbright et al., 2001);
this is consistently supported by findings from
human brain imaging studies showing that multiple
cortical regions are activated during the presentation
of painful stimuli (Coghill et al., 1994; Derbyshire and
Jones, 1998; Jones et al., 1991; Paulson et al., 1998; Tal-
bot et al., 1991).
Therefore, drawing from this literature, and follow-
ing the stream of other scientific works (Brakus,
2001; Fornerino et al., 2006; Schmitt, 1999, 2003), we
conceptualize the Customer Experience as a multidi-
mensional structure composed by elementary com-
ponents. Nevertheless, one must keep in mind that,
as indeed the study proved, customers hardly ever
recognize such kind of structure. In contrast, we
expect that customers perceive each experience as a
complex but unitary feeling, each component being
hardly distinguishable from the others.
As above mentioned, our conceptualization of the
elementary components of the Customer Experience
has some elements in common with the model pro-
posed by Schmitt (1999) and with the results of
Fornerino et al. (2006). Moving from the basic idea
of ‘‘engagement at different levels’’ Schmitt (1999)
proposes a modular conceptualization of the concept
of Customer Experience. Specifically, Schmitt identi-
fies five Strategic Experiential Modules: sensory experi-
ences (sense); affective experiences (feel); creative
cognitive experiences (think); physical experiences,
behaviors and lifestyle (act); and social-identity expe-
riences that result from relating to a reference group
or culture (relate). Fornerino et al. (2006) analyze the
case of an immersive consumption experience and
identify five distinct dimensions: sensorial-percep-
tual, affective and physical-behavioral (components)
and social and cognitive (facets).
Hence, drawing from the extant literature, the (expe-
riential) components we have assumed as dimen-
sions of the Customer Experience are:
v Sensorial Component: a component of the Cus-
tomer Experience whose stimulation affects the
senses; an offering, whose aim is to provide good
sensorial experiences, can address sight, hearing,
touch, taste and smell so as to arouse aesthetical
pleasure, excitement, satisfaction, sense of beauty
(good examples are Jamba Juice bars or Lush
stores).
v Emotional Component: a component of the Cus-
tomer Experience which involves one’s affective
system through the generation of moods, feel-
ings, emotions; an offering can generate emo-
tional experience in order to create an affective
relation with the company, its brand or products
(good examples of brands which claim a strong
emotional link with their customers are Barilla
and Kinder Surprise).
v Cognitive Component: a component of the Cus-
tomer Experience connected with thinking or
398
conscious mental processes; an offering may
engage customers in using their creativity or
in situations of problem solving; furthermore a
company can lead consumer to revise the usual
idea of a product or some common mental
assumptions (as happened with the Barbie, the
first doll with the image of a young woman).
v Pragmatic Component: a component of the Cus-
tomer Experience coming from the practical act
of doing something; in this sense the pragmatic
component includes, but is not exhausted by,
the concept of usability (the Apple iMac offers
an optimal example of what it means to design
an extraordinary practical experience for users
based on usability standards). In fact it does not
only refer to the use of the product in the post-
purchase stage, but it extends to all the product
life-cycle stages (see for an example KitchenAid
and Whirpool’s initiative called Insperience).
v Lifestyle Component: a component of the Cus-
tomer Experience that comes from the affirma-
tion of the system of values and the beliefs of
the person often through the adoption of a life-
style and behaviors. Frequently an offering may
provide such experience because the product
itself and its consumption/use become means
of adhesion to certain values the company and
the brand embody and the customers share (as
in the consumption of no logo products).
v Relational Component: a component of the Cus-
tomer Experience that involves the person and,
beyond, his/her social context, his/her relation-
ship with other people or also with his/her ideal
self. An offering can leverage on such component
by means of a product which encourages the
use/consumption together with other people
(i.e. Disneyland parks) or which is the core of a
common passion that may eventually lead to
the creation of a community or still a tribe of fans
(i.e. Ducati); finally the product (as haute couture
apparel) can be also a means of affirmation of a
social identity, inducing a sense of belonging or
of distinction from a social group; in this case
the link with the lifestyle component is very
relevant.
While mainly drawing from the results of the above
mentioned works, the dimensions of the Customer
Experience we propose bear some differences. First,
taking into consideration Schmitt’s act module, we
distinguish the physical aspects from the values
and join the physical part with the sensorial dimen-
sion. Such approach is also consistent with recent
neurophysiologic studies, whereby the physical and
sensitive aspects are considered as a unitary dimen-
sion. Secondly, we add a new dimension, namely
the pragmatic component, which we drew from the
extant literature on the user experience (Arhippai-
nem, 2004; Battarbee and Koskinen, 2005; Forlizzi
and Ford, 2000) and which takes into account the
aspects related to the human-objects interaction.
European Management Journal Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 395–410, October 2007

The General Framework
Drawing from the extant theories on value creation
and co-creation we propose a conceptual framework
where the concepts of Customer Experience and
exchanged value are encapsulated and their mutual-
relations and the inter-relations with the main entities
(the company and the consumer) are outlined.
As before introduced, the Customer Experience origi-
nates from a set of interactions between a customer
and a product, a company or part of its organization
and the value that the consumer and the company
gain is created through that set of interactions (Addis
and Holbrook, 2001). Additionally, following Addis
and Holbrook (2001) we make a distinction between
two kinds of consumer value: utilitarian value (or func-
tional value) and hedonic value (or experiential value).
Such distinction draws from the subject-object inter-
action as described by Holbrook (1999) whereby the
type of value depends on the relative weight of the
objective (or functional) features of the product over
the subjective responses of the consumer (see Hol-
brook, 1999), which, turn, are elicited by specific
aspects of the offer, which we refer to as ‘‘experien-
tial features’’. Equally, on the basis on the relative
weight of the hedonic value over the utilitarian
value, products can be classified into three groups:
hedonic products, utilitarian products, and balanced prod-
ucts, for which a balance between the two types of
value is present (see Figure 1).
On the other hand, on the side of the company, the
value generated from the set of interactions between
the customer and the company (even when mediated
by the company’s offering) has a potential impact
both on the traditional performance measures (i.e.
market share, sales, profitability) and on a set of
intangible assets of the company (brand equity and
customer equity).
The general framework is represented in Figure 2.
Figure 1 Hedonic, Utilitarian and Balanced Products
(Adapted from Addis and Holbrook, 2001)
European Management Journal Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 395–410, October 2007
HOW TO SUSTAIN THE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE
Research Methodology
This study takes into consideration the role of the
Customer Experience in determining the outcomes
of the introduction of some well-known and remark-
ably successful products; to simplify the choice of the
cases to be analyzed, we select our sample of cases
among those that are considered, both in the existing
literature and in the common opinion, as successful
and are characterized by widely-known brands with
a very strong image. Furthermore, we specifically
consider products that are not characterized by a
strong superiority in technological aspects (which
mainly convey functional value) so as to better
isolate and outline the role played by experiential
features.
As the research project aims at suggesting an inter-
pretative model of the above described phenomena,
and due to the novelty of the matters, an explorative
study was carried on. For such reason, the analyzed
data were partially qualitative.
Sampling of the Cases
Cases were selected to achieve an appreciable degree
of heterogeneity in terms of Customer Experience
conveyed to the market. Specifically, two variables,
namely:
v type of knowledge embedded (tacit vs. coded, as per
Polanyi, 1983);
v durability (non durable, medium range, long range)
were considered for the selection process since
they have a considerable impact in determining the
Customer Experience (see Figure 3).
Investigation Methodology
The research has been carried out in two phases. In
the first part, the experiential features of the offering
proposed by the company have been analyzed by
means of secondary sources and direct interviews:
this phase was meant to understand the marketing
strategy used by the company and the aspects of
the Customer Experience on which the company
focused in its strategy. In the second part, a market
research has been performed to assess how custom-
ers perceive and evaluate the different components
of the Customer Experience and to assess which of
the six components were perceived as the most rele-
vant for each of the products analyzed. In particular,
following Calder and Malthouse, 2006 a survey, both
explorative and descriptive in nature, was carried
out by means of a structured questionnaire with mul-
tiple choice, rating scale and agreement scale ques-
tions based on a 1-4 Likert scale. The choice of the
questionnaire as investigation means has been taken
both on the basis of some precedents (as the already
399
HOW TO SUSTAIN THE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE
Value proposition
Company
Value realization
Company value (Ferraresi and Schmitt, 2006)
_ Sales, Market share...
_ Brand equity
_ Customer equity
Figure 2 General Framework
Gatorade iPod
Coded
Pringles Playstation
Type of knowledge embedded
Haute Couture
Brand Bars
Nike
Tacit
McDonald’s
Swatch
Non durable Durable
(Medium range)
Durability
Figure 3 Sample of Selected Cases
mentioned work by Calder and Malthouse, 2006) and
on the ground of the fact that data collected through
questionnaires permit the use of specific statistical
analyses, which can be applied to explore the inter-
nal structure of the Customer Experience, as it has
been conceptualized in our study.
The questionnaire has been submitted to a non-statis-
tical sample of almost 200 units (for each analyzed
product, totaling 2368 units) chosen among individu-
als, between 16 and 55 years, who usually buy/use
the considered product (for further information on
the sample, please refer to the sample description
in Appendix 1). We outline that the choice of
employing a non-statistical sample implies some
problems on results generalizability; this issue, how-
ever, can be considered as being not too relevant due
to the explorative nature of the research. The pro-
posed interpretative model, in fact, can be subse-
quently validated and tested on the basis of a
multiple case study analysis.
The administered questionnaire (a sample of which
can be found in Appendix 2) had been pre-tested
on a small sample of consumers, hence the final ver-
sion is made up of three parts: the first is aimed at
collecting demographical information (age, gender,
400
Experience
Sensorial
Emotional Value perception
Cognitive
Pragmatic Consumer
Lifestyle Value expectation
Relational
Consumer Value (Holbrook 1999; Addis and
Holbrook 2001)
_Utilitarian value
_Edonistic value
education, etc.) about the respondents; the second
Harley-Davidson investigates the motivations on the basis of the pur-
Smart chase by analyzing the role of the experiential fea-
tures; the last section is aimed at comparing the
evaluation of the different components in order to
Ikea
understand which one the customers consider as
Swarovski most relevant. The questionnaire was administered
to the sample both in paper and electronic format
Durable
(Long range)
(on the WWW).
Data Analysis
The framework for the analysis of the data is based
on the conceptualization of the Customer Experience
as a multidimensional concept. The first analysis was
carried out on the collected data to assess the relative
weight of the utilitarian value when compared to the
hedonic value.
In a second phase each component of the Customer
Experience has been analyzed to investigate how
customers evaluated it and how much relevant it
was when compared with the others. This part of
the analysis was aimed at defining the interpretative
model (see paragraph 6).
A factor analysis was carried out to explore the inter-
nal structure of the dataset, additionally, further
qualitative analyses and a cluster analysis (for some
specific cases in which it seemed relevant to identify
the existence of differences in customer behavior and
evaluations) were conducted.
Results of the Survey
As mentioned in the previous paragraph the analysis
of the data obtained by the survey was aimed at
reaching two main results:
European Management Journal Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 395–410, October 2007
 HOW TO SUSTAIN THE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE

v the comprehension of the relative weights of the
experiential features over the functional ones in
the perception of value (for each of the twelve
product analyzed);
v the definition of the contribution of each experi-
ential component to the overall evaluation of
the offer.
Utilitarian vs. Hedonic Value
nent is associated to certain group of customers,
which represent only a fraction of the entire market
(i.e. the relational component tied with collecting
practices). Consequently, the average score reported
by such component is substantially lowered by the
large part of the sample which is definitely not inter-
ested in this kind of component of the Customer
Experience. As expected, a cluster analysis confirmed
this line of reasoning isolating two clusters of cus-
tomers, one remarkably affected by the relational
component, the other substantially indifferent.

The first analyses were oriented at determining the

relevance of the whole hedonic value as compared Experiential Components
to the utilitarian one. Figure 4 presents the results
The second set of analyses was oriented at determin-
and demonstrates that overall the experiential fea-
ing the scores of each experiential component for
tures are perceived by customers almost as much rel-
each product under analysis. The results have been
evant as the functional ones, indeed 7 products out of
summarized in Figure 5 (scores have been calculated
12 have been classified as ‘‘balanced’’ and 2 products
as mean of the scores of the components of the Cus-
have been reported to be ‘‘hedonic’’: Harley David-
tomer Experience).
son and Smart. Such observations should however
be tempered with the consideration that certain types
Scores have been divided into three sets according to
of experiences are particularly difficult to be investi-
their distance from the mean of the scale used (which
gated simply by means of a questionnaire. Those are
is 2.5); namely: scores much above the mean, scores
experiences which indeed are felt by a customer but
near the mean or slightly above and scores below
often at a sub-conscious level, thus a quick and
the mean.
superficial analysis, such as that performed while
responding to a questionnaire, is likely to miss or
Additionally, two considerations can be drawn from
underestimate their real impact. Further, people
Figure 5:
often show a tendency to undervalue the influence
of communication campaigns, advertising and other
v the value associated with the sensorial compo-
marketing strategies on their purchase decisions;
nent is substantially high (above the mean)
often an impulse purchase, mainly dictated by irra-
across all the considered cases;
tional motivations, is later re-interpreted in rational
v the value associated with the relational compo-
terms and thus underestimated in the reported per-
nent does not vary sensibly across products
ceptions of a questionnaire.
and it is lower than expected, indeed no occur-
rences have been reported to be much above
As for the relational component, the analysis from
the mean. This can be explained, as previously
secondary sources showed that such kind of compo-
mentioned, by the presence of two different
groups of consumers within a given polled sam-
ple, one of those being substantially indifferent
Hedonic Value Utilitarian Value Type of product to the specific experiential component.
SWATCH 2.40 3.13 Utilitarian* Given such particularities, in defining the interpreta-
PRINGLES 2.13 2.91 Balanced tive model (proposed in the next paragraph) we
HARLEY DAVIDSON 3.03 1.71 Hedonic*

SMART 2.98 2.63 Hedonic*

IPOD 3.02 3.35 Balanced

NIKE 2.28 3.07 Utilitarian*

H.C. BRAND BARS 2.48 2.93 Balanced

PLAYSTATION 2.59 3.22 Balanced

GATORADE 2.56 2.81 Balanced

MCDONALD’S 2.31 3.04 Utilitarian*

IKEA 2.81 3.06 Balanced

SWAROVSKI 2.65 3.08 Balanced

Figure 4 Main Results of the Survey (a). *ANOVA:

p-value < 0.05 Figure 5 Main Results of the Survey (b)

European Management Journal Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 395–410, October 2007 401
HOW TO SUSTAIN THE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE

decided to analyze separately the sensorial and the

Score Sensorial Link with core
relational component. Experience functionalities

SWATCH 3.48 Sight No

Complex Experiences PRINGLES 2.65 Taste Yes

HARLEY DAVIDSON 3.53 Sight No

The main objective of the factor analysis was to study
whether the experiential components were actually SMART 2.70 Sight No

being perceived separately by customers or not. Such IPOD 3.63 Hearing Yes
investigation is important both from a theoretical NIKE 3.21 Sight No
perspective and from a managerial perspective. The-
oretically, as we hypothesized the existence of com- H.C. BRAND BARS 3.62 Sight No

plex experiences whose modularity cannot be PLAYSTATION 2.90 Sight&Hearing Yes

decomposed (as perceived by customers), and mana-
GATORADE 2.53 Taste Yes
gerially since managers, while greatly benefiting
from a simple and straight-forward tool (operating MCDONALD’S 2.67 Taste Yes

on single and separated components) definitively IKEA 3.31 Sight Yes

ought to take into account potentially complex inter-
SWAROVSKI 3.63 Sight Yes
actions, should they be identified in the factor
analysis.
Figure 6 Typologies of Sensorial Component

Indeed, the results of the factor analysis showed that

each case reported both pure components (that is,
factors that can be related to a single experiential
component) and ‘‘mixed components’’ (that is, fac-
tors whose variables belong to different experiential
components). Mixed components can be considered
as a cue for the hypothesized existence of interrela-
tions between components, which in turn stand for
complex experiences. Complex experiences thus
emerge as specific case in which the components
are so intimately intermingled that consumers are
unable to draw any separation between them.
An example of the results of the factor analysis for
the iPod case is reported in appendix.
The Interpretative Model
The interpretative model consists of two parts. First
of all, on the bases of the evidence reported in the
discussion of the results, other qualitative analyses
were carried out to infer further insight on the senso-
rial component.
In the second part, first we analyze the relevance of
the four components that reported the highest differ-
ences in scores among the analyzed cases: emotional,
cognitive, pragmatic and lifestyle. Then, the rela-
tional component was analyzed separately: taking
into account the results of the cluster analysis, the
model defines different typologies of relational com-
ponent proposing a link between them and the char-
acteristics of the product analyzed. The output of this
second part is the Commitment/Involvement Matrix.
Sensorial Component
As before mentioned, the sensorial component was
reported to score high across all the cases. Despite
this uniformity of results, an in-depth analysis
revealed that whenever a clear link between the core
functionality of a product and a natural sense could
be established (e.g. iPod/hearing, Pringles/taste,
etc.) then that specific sensorial component was per-
ceived as being the most relevant for the user. On the
other hand, when a clear link could not be identified,
the results showed that sight was the sense perceived
as most important.
Figure 6 reports when such a link could be estab-
lished between core functionalities of a product and
the specific sensorial component.
Such observation poses some caveats from a manage-
rial point of view, and specifically when conceiving
how and what specific features of the offering should
be framed so as to address the sensorial component.
Commitment/Involvement Matrix
The analysis of the scores reported in association to
the emotional, cognitive, pragmatic and lifestyle
components suggested the definition of two variables
that could account for the differences of relevance
reported for the four components. Namely the two
variables are:
v Customer involvement, which is the level of impor-
tance a customer attributes to an object, an action
or an activity and the enthusiasm and interest
they can generate (Dalli and Romani, 2000; Gold-
smith and Emmert, 1991). Such variable is
affected by two factors: cost of the offering (both
in absolute terms and in relative terms when
compared with competitors’) and impact on the
customer’s self image. In this case, a higher cost
of the offering requires a greater willingness to
pay, which is more likely to be attained when

402 European Management Journal Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 395–410, October 2007
 HOW TO SUSTAIN THE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE

the offer provides a significant emotional compo-

Cognitive Pragmatic Pragmatic + Cognitive
nent. On the other hand, when a product has a Component Component Components
relevant impact on one’s image the sharing of
the values embedded in the offer is fundamental SWATCH 1.65 2.74 2.19

(lifestyle component). PRINGLES 1.60 2.95 2.28

HARLEY DAVIDSON 3.42 2.34 2.88

These assumptions can be compared with the data
collected to verify the existence of a relation between SMART 2.96 3.63 3.30
customer involvement and the emotional and life-
IPOD 2.46 3.68 3.07
style components. Considering the means of the
score obtained for the two modules and contrasting NIKE 1.33 3.57 2.45
them with the 2.5 cut-off value (mean of the 1-4 Lik- H.C. BRAND BARS 1.55 N.R. 0.78
ert scale) it was possible to divide the analyzed cases
into two groups: one set with scores higher than the PLAYSTATION 2.60 3.32 2.97

mean (marked in grey in Figure 7), and the other set GATORADE 3.12 2.67 2.90
with scores lower than the mean (marked in white in
1.86 2.44
Figure 7) and thus ascertain that actually the first MCDONALD’S 3.01

group includes cases characterized by higher IKEA 2.09 3.03 2.56

involvement than the ones in the second group.
SWAROVSKI 2.44 N.R. 1.22

v Customer commitment, which is the effort in terms

of resources the customer makes to use the prod-
uct (adapted from Grandinetti and Paiola, 2003).
Such variable is influenced by two factors: pur-
chase/use frequency and level of complexity in
using the product. A higher level of the former
makes an easy and comfortable use/consump-
tion (pragmatic component) desirable; a higher
level of the latter requires a greater rational
engagement (cognitive component).
As before, we compared these hypotheses with the
data collected to search for the existence of a link
between customer commitment and the cognitive
and pragmatic components. Even in this case we con-
sidered the means of the scores obtained for the two
Emotional Lifestyle Emotional + Lifestyle
Component Component Components (mean)
Figure 8 Cognitive and Pragmatic Components.
ANOVA: p-value < 0.05
modules and contrasted them with the 2.5 cut-off
value (mean of the 1-4 Likert scale).
Hence, it was possible to divide the analyzed cases
into two groups (one group with scores higher than
the mean, marked in grey in Figure 8, and the other
with scores lower than the mean, marked in white in
Figure 8) and verify that actually the first group
includes cases characterized by higher commitment
than the ones in the second group.
Customer Commitment and Customer Involvement
were used to explain the relevance of the four com-
ponents; in the case of the relational component the
same two variables could be applied to describe
three sub-typologies of the relational component.
Accordingly, three kinds of relational component
could be identified:

SWATCH 3.03 2.28 2.65

v absent or superficial: when a low-level customer
involvement is present the relational component
PRINGLES 1.79 1.53 1.67
stems from interpersonal relationships that are
HARLEY DAVIDSON 3.83 2.85 3.34 temporally limited to the time spent while using
SMART 3.59 2.82 3.21
the product (e.g. Playstation and Pringles);
v connected to collecting practices; when the rela-
3.45 3.27
IPOD 3.08
tional component is more intense than in the pre-
NIKE 1.31 1.98 1.65 vious case (due to the high level of customer
H.C. BRAND BARS 2.66 1.98 2.32
involvement), but the low commitment level
indicates that the relational component is mainly
PLAYSTATION 2.44 2.02 2.23
generated by collecting practices stemmed from
GATORADE 2.71 1.83 2.27 the ownership of the product (e.g. collectors
clubs for Swatch and Swarovski);
MCDONALD’S 2.15 N.R. 1.08
v profound: for the high-involvement/high-com-
IKEA N.R. N.R. 0 mitment products the relational component is
SWAROVSKI 2.65 2.90 2.78 even more intense and is due to the existence
of communities of customers. In this case, inter-
Figure 7 Emotional and Lifestyle Components. ANOVA: personal relationships are built not exclusively
p-value < 0.05 on a common interest, but on shared lifestyles

European Management Journal Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 395–410, October 2007 403
HOW TO SUSTAIN THE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE

according to the matching association between the

Target Scope
Absent or superficial Whole target market
Profound Specific segment within
(community) the target market
Collecting Specific segment within
the target market
Source/occasion reported scores and a given configuration of the set
of four components. Furthermore, depending on
the combination of the Commitment/Involvement
Usage of the product
couple, the relational component assumes one of
the three sub-typologies earlier specified (also
reported in Figure 10).
Ownership and usage of
the product
Finally, once each product has been positioned in the
matrix, one can observe how the chosen variables
suitably characterize the four clusters obtained.
Ownership of the
product

Conclusions and Future Developments

Figure 9 Relational Component: Target Scope and
Sources
The above analyses show how important it is to pay
attention to the new arising tendencies in customers’
and systems of values and are originated both behavior interpretation. The study proved that a rel-
from the joint usage/consumption of the product evant part of the value proposed to customers, and
and from its ownership (e.g. Harley Davidson actually recognized by them, is linked to experiential
and Smart). features; we found that, regardless of the context,
customers want to live positive consumption experi-
Each sub-typology of the relational component pre- ences. Living a positive Customer Experience can
sents specific characteristics depending on the scope promote the creation of an emotional tie between a
of the target for which the relational component is firm’s brand and its customers which in turn enhance
relevant, and on the sources and the occasions in customer loyalty. Yet this does not imply that cus-
which the relational component is originated and tomers neglect the importance of functionalities:
takes place (Figure 9). sometimes as required standard, sometimes as fac-
tors enabling an optimal experience. We notice that
Considering the two proposed variables, the role the functional value (or utilitarian value) obtains
played by the relational component and the results almost always (except in two cases) a score near
reported in Figure 7 and in Figure 8, a four-quadrant the experiential (hedonic) one; in some cases even a
matrix (Figure 10) can be drawn. Each quadrant con- little higher. Therefore this part of the study based
tains offers with a specific combination of the Com- on the analysis of best practices proves that it is
mitment/Involvement couple. Accordingly, each important to deliver an adequate balance between
quadrant identifies a specific configuration with utilitarian and hedonic value.
respect to the four components considered. The
products were then positioned within the quadrants The results also show that these successful products
involve customers’ senses, emotions, thoughts, acts,
values and relations in different ways: each product
leverages on more than one component, the particu-
lar combination depending on the characteristics of
High

Gatorade, Ikea, Harley-Davidson,

Playstation iPod,Smart the product itself. Furthermore, we can infer that,
CUSTOMER COMMITMENT

C+P E+L+C+P by leveraging on more components, it is theoretically

R: Absent or R: Profound possible to intensify the whole hedonic value thanks
superficial (community)
to the existence of positive interferences among the
activated components. Hence, resting on psychologi-
cal and sociological interpretations about the genera-
McDonald’s,
H.C. Brand Bars,
Swarovski, tion and elaboration of sensations, thoughts,
Swatch
Pringles,Nike emotions, behaviors and relationships and of their
R: Absent or E+L interactions and interrelations (Goleman, 1995), we
Low

superficial R: Collecting can hypothesize the existence ‘‘complex experi-

Low
CUSTOMER INVOLVEMENT
Labels:
E = Emotional component
L = Lifestyle component
Figure 10 Commitment/Involvement Matrix
High
C = Cognitive component
P = Pragmatic component
R = Relational component
ences’’ involving more than a single component.
Indeed, we found that each of the products we ana-
lyzed leverages on some experiential components;
but at a deeper investigation, we noticed that the
components are not activated independently: some-
times there are relevant overlapping areas and clear
interrelations, as reported by the factor analysis (pos-
sibly an issue to be further investigated in future
researches). From a managerial viewpoint, this

404 European Management Journal Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 395–410, October 2007

observation suggests that when devising a value
proposition focused on the Customer Experience,
companies should carefully regard at potential inter-
actions between the components of the Customer
Experience on which their products leverage so as
to fully exploit the effects above described.
Managerial Implications
Due to the lack of a rigorous phase of validation of the
suggested model, we need to precise that the results
do not allow a straight generalization. However, that
notwithstanding, we can still draw some implications
and suggestions aimed at supporting a manager in
devising a value proposition, especially when the
value delivered to the customer should ideally be dri-
ven both by experiential features (hedonic/experien-
tial value) and by functional characteristics
(utilitarian/functional value), thus possibly increas-
ing the odds of a good market response.
We sum up these indications into four guidelines:
1. Develop Experience-driven innovations; more than
Technology push or Market driven innovations,
the ones leveraging on experience have better
chances to get a positive market response as they
seem more likely and more capable of meeting
new customers’ needs;
2. Consider the functional features of the commercial offer
in order to create a sustainable competitive advan-
tage with respect to competitors. Because the util-
itarian value is still one of the main drivers of
customers’ evaluation and perception of a new
product, it ought to be paid full attention, particu-
larly when those functionalities act as enabling
factors for great experiences.
3. Provide a venue for an integrated Customer Experience
according to the position in the ‘‘Consuming
Experience’’ continuum where the Customer
Experience is being provided. Specifically, when
experiences are mainly created by consumers,
the experiential features of the product or service
being offered should be systematically addressed
(as it is for Pringles and Gatorade cases). In the
case of experiences that are co-developed by com-
panies and consumers, companies should enable
the molding and forging of a consumer’s own
experience by providing the experiential basic
materials (as it is for Harley-Davidson case).
Finally, for experiences that are mainly created
by companies, the whole set of products, services
and context should be addressed in a systematic
and consistent way (as it is for McDonald’s and
Haute-Couture Brand Bars cases).
4. Keep in mind that the different components of the Cus-
tomer Experience depend on the characteristics of a
given product.
Specifically, at an operational level, the proposed
interpretative model can be used to identify:
European Management Journal Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 395–410, October 2007
HOW TO SUSTAIN THE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE
v which sensorial component should characterize a
new offer (in the light of its core functionalities);
v which components of the Customer Experience
are consistent with the levels of Customer
Involvement and Customer Commitment of the
offer;
v which sort of relational component is to be acti-
vated when dealing with different levels of cus-
tomer involvement and customer commitment
of a specific offer.
Next Developments
The main drawbacks of this study are connected to
the fact that complex experiences (that is, experiences
originating from the interaction of two or more com-
ponents) were isolated in the factor analysis but not
accounted under the interpretative model.
Such interactions could be further explored by means
of a multi-way ANOVA so as to isolate both the main
effects of the ‘‘pure’’ components and account for the
interaction effects which originate the complex
experiences.
Moreover, while our study was not intended to
develop a general scale for measuring each experien-
tial component, we recognize that such is an impor-
tant area which deserves a specific investigation.
Another avenue for a further path of research would
entail the exploration of whether certain types of
experiences (such as very common experiences or
experiences which are particularly familiar to a cus-
tomer) can still be accounted as a legitimate Cus-
tomer Experience. In this respect it would be
interesting to account for a sort of updating mecha-
nism whereby the expectations of a customer are sys-
tematically updated as he or she lives a specific
experience.
A further advancement of the research would take
into considerations the sets of experiences that can
be originated across each specific stage of the pur-
chasing process (e.g. in-store experience), thus
exploiting a much wider scope of experience than
the one which can be offered by mere products.
Eventually, a further validation of the model is
needed, for instance by means of multiple case stud-
ies so as to achieve an analytical generalizability.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the anonymous ref-
erees and the editor of this paper (Prof. H. Laroche)
for the insightful comments and suggestions. The
authors also gratefully acknowledge the support of
Fabrizio Rossi and Pablo Daini for their collaboration
in survey data collection and preliminary analysis.
405
HOW TO SUSTAIN THE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE

Appendix 1. Sample Description

Product Number of Sex Age

questionnaires
F (%) M (%) 16–20 (%) 21–30 (%) 31–40 (%) 40–55 (%)
Swatch 221 37 63 25 41 1 33
Pringles 184 48 52 21 59 16 4
Harley Davidson 219 6 94 0 28 54 18
Smart 207 11 89 7 63 24 6
iPod 187 6 94 20 57 16 7
Nike 198 17 83 25 55 15 5
H.C. Brands Bar 188 40 60 16 59 22 3
Playstation 239 4 96 47 45 7 1
Gatorade 191 24 76 33 48 14 6
McDonald’s 186 49 51 29 52 14 5
Ikea 174 69 31 4 64 25 7
Swarovski 174 81 19 4 50 33 13
Education level Region Employment Status
High school Degree or North Centre- Homemaker + Student Employed
or less (%) more (%) (%) South Unemployed + (%) (%)
(%) Retired (%)
Swatch 51 49 77 23 3 41 56
Pringles 46 54 82 18 3 55 41
Harley Davidson 76 24 83 17 1 5 94
Smart 83 17 61 39 0 24 76
iPod 67 33 70 30 1 43 56
Nike 70 30 67 33 3 55 42
H.C. Brands Bar 62 38 98 3 0 34 66
Playstation 89 11 50 50 4 59 37
Gatorade 80 20 75 25 2 50 48
McDonald’s 73 27 59 41 5 44 51
Ikea 58 42 77 23 3 29 68
Swarovski 66 34 68 32 12 22 66

Appendix 2. Questionnaire (iPod)

Demographic information
Age
 Less or equal to 20  31–40
 21–30  More than 40
Gender
 Male  Female
Education
 High school or less  Degree or more advanced
Employment
 Homemaker  Employed  Retired
 Student  Unemployed
City/town of residence:________________________

Respondent-product interaction information

How often do you use your iPod?
 Often, once or more frequently a day
 Occasionally, some times a week
 Rarely, some times a month

406 European Management Journal Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 395–410, October 2007
 HOW TO SUSTAIN THE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE

Appendix 2 (continued)

Respondent-product interaction information

What is the main reason that you use your iPod?
 Listen to the music
 Record conversations
 Store any kind of files
 Other reasons (please specify): ____________
Please tell us the main reasons why you chose an iPod over other mp3 players (please select at maximum 3
answers)
 Quality/price ratio
 Performance (battery life, quick file transfer. . .)
 Aesthetical aspects
 Ease of use
 Distinctiveness with respect to other mp3 players
 Apple brand
 Opportunity of being part of a community
 Other reasons (please specify): ____________
Please tell us which of the following statements about you and your iPod are true:
 I use it to record conversations
 I use it to transfer any kind of file
 I use speakers to listen to my music even without earphones
 I use extra functions of my iPod such as the diary, the alarm, the calendar, etc.
 I play with my iPod’s included games
Please tell us how much you agree / disagree with the following statement (1-4 Likert scale)
 It is easy and comfortable to use
 The interface is user-friendly
 File transfer to and from a PC is quick and easy
 It is comfortable to carry and to use even in motion (dancing, running, working out. . .)
Please tell us how important each of the following statement is for you (1-4 Likert scale)
 Opportunity of being part of a community
 Opportunity of sharing and exchanging tunes with other iPod users
Please tell us how important each of the following features of the iPod is for you (1-4 Likert scale)
 Design
 Essential and slick style
 Color and material
 Sound clearness
 Sound quality
When do you normally use your iPod?
 When I want to relax
 When I want to have fun
 When I am travelling
 Other occasions (please specify): _____________
What kind of image about yourself do you think you are expressing when using your iPod?
 Young and active person
 A person different from the mass
 A person who loves having fun
 No specific image
 Other (please specify): _____________________
Please tell us how important each of the following features of the iPod is for you (1-4 Likert scale)
 Quality/price ratio
 Performance (battery life, quick file transfer, etc.)
 Aesthetical aspect (form factor, design, color,. . .)
 Sound quality
 Distinctiveness with respect to other mp3 players
 Image of the iPod (young, innovative, dynamic, etc.)
 Extra functions (diary, games, calendar. . .)
 Apple brand
 Ease of use
 Opportunity of being part of a community
 Use during moments of fun and entertainment

European Management Journal Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 395–410, October 2007 407
HOW TO SUSTAIN THE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE

Appendix 3. Factor Analysis iPod (6 factors)

Pure Components
Answers Coefficient Experience
typology
FACTOR 1: SENSORIAL COMPONENT
Sound clearness 0.848 Sensorial
Sound quality 0.859 Sensorial
FACTOR 2: PRAGMATIC COMPONENT
The interface is user friendly 0.807 Pragmatic
It is easy and comfortable to use 0.759 Pragmatic
FACTOR 3: RELATIONAL COMPONENT
Opportunity of being a member of a community 0.880 Relational
Complex experiences
FACTOR 4:SENSORIAL/LIFESTYLE COMPONENTS
Design 0.848 Sensorial
Elegant and essential style 0.773 Sensorial
Material and colour 0.717 Sensorial
Esthetical aspects (shape, colour, design. . .) 0.728 Sensorial
Specificity and distinctiveness with respect to other MP3 players 0.543 Lifestyle
iPod image (young, innovative. . .) 0.590 Lifestyle
FACTOR 5: PRAGMATIC/COGNITIVE/LIFESTYLE COMPONENTS
Simple and fast file transfer from P.C. 0.432 Pragmatic
Extra functions (diary, games, calendar. . .) 0.660 Cognitive
Existence of a dedicated line of accessories (loudspeakers, 0.707 Cognitive
cases, car accessories,. . .)
Prestige and fame of Apple brand 0.462 Lifestyle
FACTOR 6: PRAGMATIC/RELATIONAL/EMOTIONAL COMPONENTS
It is easy-to-carry and to use even in motion (dancing, running, working out. . .) 0.468 Pragmatic
Opportunity of sharing musical files with other iPod owners 0.557 Relational
Usage for fun/entertainment 0.776 Emotional

References Dalli, D. and Romani, S. (2000) Il Comportamento del

Addis, M. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001) On the conceptual
link between mass customisation and experiential
consumption: An explosion of subjectivity. Journal of
Consumer Behaviour 1(1), 50–66.
Anderson, J. (1995) Cognitive psychology and its implica-
tions. (4th ed.). W.H. Freeman, New York.
Arhippainem, L. (2004) Capturing user experience for
product design, unpublished white paper.
Battarbee, K. and Koskinen, I. (2005) Co-experience: User
experience as interaction. CoDesign 1(1), 5–18.
Brakus, J. (2001) A theory of consumer experiences,
unpublished doctoral dissertation, columbia business
school, New York, NY.
Calder, B. and Malthouse, E. (2006). The effects of media
context on advertising effectiveness, forthcoming,
Journal of Advertsing.
Carlzon, J. (1987) Moments of Truth. Ballinger, Cambridge,
MA.
Carù, A. and Cova, B. (2003) Revisiting consumption
experience: A more humble but complete view of the
concept. Marketing Theory 3(2), 267–286.
Carù, A. and Cova, B. (2007) Consuming experience.
Routledge, London.
Coghill, R.C., Talbot, J.D., Evans, A.C., Meyer, E., Gjedde,
A., Bushnell, M.C. and Duncan, G.H. (1994) Distrib-
uted processing of pain and vibration by the human
brain. Journal of Neuroscience 14, 4095–4108.
Consumatore. Teoria e Applicazioni di Marketing,
Franco Angeli, Milan.
Derbyshire, S.W. and Jones, A.K. (1998) Cerebral responses
to a continual tonic pain stimulus measured using
positron emission tomography. Pain 76, 127–135.
Douglas, S.P. and Craig, C.S. (2000) Global marketing
strategy. Mc Graw Hill, New York.
Farinet, A. and Ploncher, E. (2002) Customer Relationship
Management, ETAS, Milan.
Ferraresi, M. and Schmitt, B.H. (2006) Marketing espe-
rienziale. Come sviluppare l’esperienza di consumo,
Franco Angeli, Milan.
Fiske, T. and Taylor, S.E. (1991) Social Cognition. (2nd ed.).
McGraw Hill, New York.
Forlizzi, J. and Ford, S. (2000) The building blocks of
experience: An early framework for interaction
designers. Proceedings of the DIS 2000 Seminar,
Communications of the Acm, 419–423.
Fornerino, M., Helme-Guizon, A. and de Gaudemaris, C.
(2006). Mesurer L’immersion dans une experience de
consommation: Premiers developpements, Proceed-
ings of the XXIIth Congress de l’AFM, Nantes, May
2006.
Fulbright, R.K., Troche, C.J., Skudlarski, P., Gore, J.C. and
Wexler, B.E. (2001) Functional MR imaging of regional
brain activation associated with the affective experi-
ence of pain. American Journal of Roentgenology 177,
1205–1210.

408 European Management Journal Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 395–410, October 2007

Goldsmith, R.E. and Emmert, J. (1991) Measuring product
category involvement: A multitrait – multimethod
study. Journal of Business Research 23, 363–371.
Goleman, D. (1995) Emotional intelligence. Bantam, New
York.
Grandinetti, R. and Paiola, M. (2003) Impegno e Voce dei
Consumatori nei Processi d’Acquisto. Proceedings of
the International Congress Marketing Trends 2003.
Holbrook, M.B. (1999) Consumer Value. Routledge,
London.
Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982) The experien-
tial aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasy, feel-
ings and fun. Journal of Consumer Research 9(2),
132–140.
Jones, A.K., Brown, W.D., Friston, K.J., Qi, L.Y. and
Frackowiak, R.S. (1991) Cortical and subcortical local-
ization of response to pain in man using positron
emission tomography. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London. Series B, Biological Sciences 244, 39–44.
Kotler, P. and Keller, K.L. (2006). Marketing management.
(12thed.). Prentice hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
LaSalle, D. and Britton, T.A. (2003) Priceless: Turning
ordinary products into extraordinary experiences,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Milligan, A. and Smith, S. (2002) Uncommon Practice: People
Who Deliver a Great Brand Experience Harlow. Ft
Prentice Hall, London.
Paulson, P.E., Minoshima, S., Morrow, T.J. and Casey, K.L.
(1998) Gender differences in pain perception and
patterns of cerebral activation during noxious heat
stimulation in humans. Pain 76, 223–229.
Peppers, D. and Rogers M. (2000) Marketing One to One, Il
sole 24 Ore, Milan.
European Management Journal Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 395–410, October 2007
HOW TO SUSTAIN THE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE
Pine II, B.J. and Gilmore, J.H. (1999) The Experience
Economy, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Pinker, S. (1997) How The Mind Works. Norton, New York.
Polanyi, M. (1983). The Tacit Dimension, Peter Smith,
Gloucester, MA.
Ponsonby-Mccabe, S. and Boyle, E. (2006) Understanding
brands as experiential spaces: Axiological implications
for marketing strategists. Journal of Strategic Marketing
14(2), 175–189.
Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004) Co-Creation
Experiences: The Next Practice in Value Creation.
Journal of Interactive Marketing 18(3), 5–14.
Schmitt, B.H. (1999) Experiential Marketing. The Free Press,
New York.
Schmitt, B.H. (2003) Customer Experience Management: A
Revolutionary Approach to Connecting with Your Cus-
tomer. Wiley and Sons, New Jersey.
Schmitt, B.H. and Simonson, A. (1997) Marketing aesthetics:
The strategic management of brands, identity, and image.
Free Press, New York.
Shaw, C. and Ivens, J. (2005) Building Great Customer
Experiences. MacMillan, New York.
Smith, S. and Wheeler, J. (2002) Managing the Customer
Experience. Prentice Hall, London.
Talbot, J.D., Marrett, S., Evans, A.C., Meyer, E., Bushnell,
M.C. and Duncan, G.H. (1991) Multiple representa-
tions of pain in human cerebral cortex. Science 25,
1355–1358.
Tavassoli, N. (1998) Language in Multimedia: Interaction of
Spoken and Written Information. Journal of Consumer
Research 25(1), 35–36.
409
HOW TO SUSTAIN THE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE
CHIARA GENTILE,
Dept. of Management,
Economics and Indus-
trial Engineering, Poli-
tecnico di Milano, P.zza
Leonardo da Vinci 32,
20133 Milano, e-mail:
chiara.gentile@polimi.it
Chiara Gentile is a Ph.D.
Student in Management
Engineering at Politecnico
di Milano. Her research
interests are in the field of Marketing, with a special
focus on Customer Experience Marketing, Customer
Equity, Customer Lifetime Value.
NICOLA SPILLER,
Dept. of Management,
Economics and Indus-
trial Engineering, Poli-
tecnico di Milano, P.zza
Leonardo da, Vinci 32,
20133 Milano, e-mail:
nicola.spiller@polimi.it
Nicola Spiller is a Ph.D.
Student in Management
Engineering at Politecnico
di Milano. His research
interests are in the field of Marketing, with a special
focus on Brand Management, Private Labels, Retailing
and Customer Experience.
410 European Management Journal Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 395–410, October 2007
GIULIANO NOCI,
Dept. of Management,
Economics and Indus-
trial Engineering, Poli-
tecnico di Milano, P.zza
Leonardo da Vinci 32,
20133 Milano, e-mail:
giuliano.noci@polimi.it
Giuliano Noci is Full
Professor of Marketing at
Politecnico di Milano,
Dean of the Degree in
Management Engineering of the Como campus
(Politecnico di Milano), Member of the Executive
Committee of MIP Business School and Scientific
Director of the Marketing area in all the MBA pro-
grammes.
His research interests are in the field of Marketing,
with a special focus on experiential marketing. He has
directed and run executive courses and consulting to
several manufacturing and service firms.